FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

  

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 14, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated July 20, 2005, and filed with the Commission on July 21, 2005, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to provide the public with notice or an agenda for a June 21, 2005 meeting of the respondent. 

 

            3.  Section 1-225(d), G.S., in relevant part provides that: “[n]otice of each special meeting of every public agency…shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of the…[town] clerk…The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted….”

 

4.  It is found that, at the invitation of the Watertown Town Manager, four members of the respondent attended an informational gathering on June 21, 2005 in the Town Manager’s office.  It is further found that the purpose of such gathering was to inform such members, as a courtesy, of how the Town Manager was implementing an organizational study of town employees.   It is also found that there is no evidence in the record to conclude that the gathering described herein was authorized either explicitly or implicitly by the respondent. 

5.  It is found that the respondent did not provide notice of the June 21, 2005, gathering, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S.   At the hearing in this matter, the respondent contended that such gathering was not a “meeting” of the respondent within the meaning of the FOI Act.

 

            6.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting" as:

 

“…any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power….”

 

            7.  It is found that the respondent is a multimember public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  It is further found that the respondent consists of nine members, and that four members do not constitute a quorum.  

 

8.  It is found that under the Town Charter of Watertown, the Town Manager has sole authority to appoint employees and deal with the administrative service of the town.  It is also found that the implementation of an organizational study of town employees was a matter within the Town Manager’s purview.  It is further found that such matter was not a matter over which the respondent had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. 

 

9.  Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the gathering described in paragraph 4, above, was not a hearing, proceeding, convening or assembly of a quorum of the respondent, nor a communication by or to a quorum of the respondent to discuss or act upon a matter over which the respondent had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.   Accordingly, it is concluded that such gathering was not a “meeting”, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  

 

10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed. 

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 8, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Robert LeBlanc

78 Highland Avenue

Watertown, CT 06795

 

Town Council,

Town of Watertown

c/o Paul R. Jessell, Esq.

PO Box 9

680 Main Street

Watertown, CT 06795

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-353FD/paj/3/9/2006